Hello! I found your website and it reminded me of an article I read. I am a Christian and I would like for you to click on this link and read this article. I hope it's very eye-opening for you. God loves you all and I care about you all, and we don't want you guys to be eternally punished in the lake of fire (hell) for not believing in God's Son Jesus Christ (Who Himself is God) because of your sins. I am sending you another link that tells you how you can be saved. Thank you so much for taking the time to read this email and these two links. I really hope you repent and choose to accept Jesus Christ today. Then tell the rest of your staff so that they can get saved too!

-- [name removed]"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all." -1 John 1:5

Just because it happened in an old book, unverified by other sources, really does meet any criterion as reasonable evidence. Do you accept every incident claimed by every religion in every book? Or, as I suspect, just make an exception for your favorite one?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I'm not sure were to start, I'm quite impressed by the time and effort people here put in to prove "God is Not Great". A book many here might have read..? Christopher Hitchens brother however, Peter was maybe an even more dedicated atheist, whom took a longer steep of faith in his "religion" that states "No God, happy world, or something"? But the atheist paradise which then was called "The Soviet Union" just proved to him how very broken this world is without God. Certainly there is no perfect christian civilization ether, but if you please prove to me better civilization, I might listen with another excitement. I believe the greatest issue in the dialog between Christians and atheists are the very different question we have. When the atheist looks for a better theory of how life came about, the christian looks for better testimony of how Gods love could be shown. Jesus stated "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." You see most Christians have in some way had an "spiritual" encounter with God, that gives some feelings to Gods love, and not just a theory. Of course in a worldview with no spirits, that encounter is most likely to be interpreted as a mental breakdown. But what can I say? You are very eager to say that other peoples experience is wrong, because you never had it yourself. And the debate ends up in many other stupid things, like Christians being against science, when most Christians are very happy about science.

First of all, I, as an atheist, am not hell-bent on proving the god is not great. Being as there isn't one. I'm here trying to demonstrate that the lack of a god is just fine. Theists seem to think otherwise.

While there is no doubt that the Soviet Union, Mao's China and a few others were pretty horrible (and North Korea now), they are not examples of atheism because they tried to replace god with human deities. Stalin was an ex-divinity student. He knew how it worked. No decent atheist would bother.

Hitler tried to do both, include god and himself as greats, and that didn't work out any better. Not many human failings can be attributed to a disbelief in god.

Nobody has yet explained how "god's love" makes the world a better place, even if it is real. I don't see christians (or any other religious group) having better lives than those that don't share the same beliefs, let alone better lives than those who don't have any beliefs. Just saying you feel good doesn't do offer anything to me, tangible or otherwise.

Though I'm not one of them, many atheists here were at one time strong christians, and they keep asking how it was that your god never bothered talking to them. Some wanted such a conversations badly. Didn't happen. Which could be interpreted to mean that they did not have a mental breakdown. I wouldn't go that far, but that might just be me.

And our eagerness has nothing to do with wanting to tell others that they are wrong. We have to, yes, but only because they are indeed wrong. If they weren't, we could discuss other matters. If there were no christians, we would be very happy to talk about other things.

And while there are indeed some christians who appear to appreciate science, the fundamentalists of the world have proven otherwise. Their ignorance on the subject, combined with their ineptness at making up excuses, is rather sad. So it is them we usually argue with over scientific matters. Again, that's their fault. Most of them are clearly intelligent enough to understand that there wasn't a flood, that the Eden story is silly, etc. but they insist in literal interpretations. I don't think you can defend their scientific attitude.

But I'd be happy to discuss any and all of these items with you. If you are so inclined, it would be nice to have you here.

I'm not sure were to start, I'm quite impressed by the time and effort people here put in to prove "God is Not Great". A book many here might have read..? Christopher Hitchens brother however, Peter was maybe an even more dedicated atheist, whom took a longer steep of faith in his "religion" that states "No God, happy world, or something"? But the atheist paradise which then was called "The Soviet Union" just proved to him how very broken this world is without God.

Bad company fallacy wrapped around an appeal to authority. Your argument is invalid.

So what about Peter Hitchens? Why should I care? The only reasons he's mentioned is that he is the bother of someone famous...and that he agrees with the majority, i.e your view.

And the Soviet Union? The primary reason it was so bad is not for its atheism, but for its secular religion: Leninism. Complete with accepting dogma over evidence, martyrs, schisms, and revered dead leaders.

Certainly there is no perfect christian civilization ether, but if you please prove to me better civilization, I might listen with another excitement.

With the exception of the United States, there's a pretty high correlation between secularism and quality of life. Example would be Modern Japan, Scandinavia, Norway, and so forth. Where highly religious countries like Mexico and Uganda are not terribly nice places to live.

I believe the greatest issue in the dialog between Christians and atheists are the very different question we have. When the atheist looks for a better theory of how life came about, the christian looks for better testimony of how Gods love could be shown.

So an atheist looks for facts, a Christian confirms his own bias...I agree that is your problem.

Of course in a worldview with no spirits, that encounter is most likely to be interpreted as a mental breakdown. But what can I say? You are very eager to say that other peoples experience is wrong, because you never had it yourself.

So I do so because it is indistinguishable from delusion, hallucination, and so forth. I do so because I am aware of the minds inclination towards credulity, especially towards things upheld as a societal good.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I'm not sure were to start, I'm quite impressed by the time and effort people here put in to prove "God is Not Great".

Firstly, your spelling's better (overall grammar worse; try using paragraph breaks) secondly, how does one who does not believe in such a being prove anything about that being, except maybe its non-existence? I mean, isn't that where one should start? Just because you have "faith" such a being exists does not automatically poof that being into existence. Just because millions or even billions of people believe that being exists, based on "faith", indoctrination, or other means also does not mean that being exists.

What makes something real, a reality, is the non-biased evidence that shows it. There is none. So, inquiring about adages (such as "greatness") is irrelevant until you get past the first step, and no theist/deist ever has.

Quote

A book many here might have read..? Christopher Hitchens brother however, Peter was maybe an even more dedicated atheist, whom took a longer steep of faith in his "religion" that states "No God, happy world, or something"? But the atheist paradise which then was called "The Soviet Union" just proved to him how very broken this world is without God.

I have never read an "atheist book", or for that matter a book about one person's ideals on atheism unless one counts "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. The reason why I am stating this is: in my opinion, many atheists do not come to atheism because of such books or philosophies, they come to it by questioning the religion in which they were either born into or indoctrinated in.

Also, what is "atheist paradise"? Communism and atheism are not synonymous with each other. I know this is the propaganda that is spewed or believed by many Christians but that's because of the witch hunts on the 1930's to 1950's in the US of the US government trying to prevent Communism taking over the US (which it wouldn't have because it would've been against the Constitution), I'm sure other countries went through the same thing. Also, though Communism is a form of Socialism, it doesn't mean that Socialism is the same as Communism. Also a misconception.

Quote

Certainly there is no perfect christian civilization ether, but if you please prove to me better civilization, I might listen with another excitement.

I highly doubt that.

Quote

I believe the greatest issue in the dialog between Christians and atheists are the very different question we have. When the atheist looks for a better theory of how life came about, the christian looks for better testimony of how Gods love could be shown. Jesus stated "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." You see most Christians have in some way had an "spiritual" encounter with God, that gives some feelings to Gods love, and not just a theory. Of course in a worldview with no spirits, that encounter is most likely to be interpreted as a mental breakdown. But what can I say? You are very eager to say that other peoples experience is wrong, because you never had it yourself. And the debate ends up in many other stupid things, like Christians being against science, when most Christians are very happy about science.

A figment of hope is still a figment of the imagination. You can't experience what is not there no matter as much as you wish for it to happen.

As a educated born again christian I decided to get just a bit more involved in discussions, as I belive we as christians ows especially scientists and other skilled persons a some more respectfull conversation.

Well, that's nice of you. Better than some of the religious nuts that come to this website bound and determined to convert the heathen atheists to their point of view.

Quote from: Dageivind

My belife is it that God has choosen to work in the creation by the laws he made for the creation. He does not ad or remove mass or energy, for the short period of time in the first stage of creating human beeings with free will given in a "safe" or at least temporary enviroment, where as some of us belive to be the only possible deffination of existance.

Could I suggest that you turn on your browser spellchecker? I don't normally bring this up, but there are at least six misspelled words here that were flagged by mine just as part of your quote. Anyway, it sounds like you're saying that God is running a simulation of some kind (think like SimCity, perhaps SimUniverse?), and thus he's playing by the rules even though he could activate the cheat codes and do whatever he wanted, within the bounds of the scenario.

Quote from: Dageivind

It seems to me that everything God wants to do on the Earth, he chooses to do trough people, for whom he has a uniq plan for that they freely chosse to folow to different degrees. They might even choos to use their God given talents to work totally aginst the plan witch they were created for. Lack of food is not the main reason for for poverty, war is. If peoples with no moral should prosper to much, history tells us, it's a disaster for so many human beeings. Sertenly God interveins, but he does not remove our mandate to rule the world, as we have cosen the knowlege of good and evil, God does not constantly remove evil as soon as it occurs, how ever, he give ut insights that some day he will remove evil.

10 misspellings here. And this sounds like pretty typical Christian doctrine, although it seems like you're suggesting that God doesn't remove evil right now so that we can choose between good and evil...but he will remove evil at some point in the future. So, why the ambiguousness? Why work through completely flawed books, which could easily be altered by people with their free will, distorting or even removing the message he's trying to send? Why the requirement of faith?

Quote from: Dageivind

To me life without fait, makes to little sense. We get born, knowing nothing. Then develop and advance for no reason but to die old and vise, and as the light goes out our knowlage dies with us, lest preserved by some number of generations after us, maybe even until the precise enviorment for our lives cease to substain.

This is true, but at the same time, it's not true. Certainly, at some point in the long-distant future, every human will be dead, our knowledge (excepting what we've recorded) with us. For that matter, at some point in the even more long-distant future, entropy will have eroded any meaningful information in the universe. But so what? A world without gods just means that we have to make the best of what we have and plan for the future, rather than relying on someone to hit the reset button later on, or change the parameters of the scenario.

Quote from: Dageivind

I see this life as a little start, a tryout if you want, to a life where time has no existance as we know it from sycluses in the uiverse. By the way, pardon my written english, I'm more of a practical then theorethical person, and english is not my native language.

I understand, but I still recommend a spellchecking add-on. I bet you can find one that works in English.

I'm not sure were to start, I'm quite impressed by the time and effort people here put in to prove "God is Not Great". A book many here might have read..?

Nope, can't say I've ever heard of it.

Quote from: Dageivind

Christopher Hitchens brother however, Peter was maybe an even more dedicated atheist, whom took a longer steep of faith in his "religion" that states "No God, happy world, or something"? But the atheist paradise which then was called "The Soviet Union" just proved to him how very broken this world is without God.

I would hardly call the Soviet Union an "atheist paradise". Forget the rhetoric you've heard about it - the reason the Soviets went after organized religion was so that the Central Committee of the Communist Party wouldn't have any competition. It's the same reason democracy was so dangerous to them.

Quote from: Dageivind

Certainly there is no perfect christian civilization ether, but if you please prove to me better civilization, I might listen with another excitement.

Actually, Christian countries were pretty awful for most of their histories, and you should see the wars that they fought.

However, the USA, which was founded as a secular country rather than a Christian one, is put together pretty well. It's survived over two hundred years of Christians trying to ruin it in favor of their religious beliefs, at any rate.

Quote from: Dageivind

I believe the greatest issue in the dialog between Christians and atheists are the very different question we have. When the atheist looks for a better theory of how life came about, the christian looks for better testimony of how Gods love could be shown. Jesus stated "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." You see most Christians have in some way had an "spiritual" encounter with God, that gives some feelings to Gods love, and not just a theory. Of course in a worldview with no spirits, that encounter is most likely to be interpreted as a mental breakdown. But what can I say? You are very eager to say that other peoples experience is wrong, because you never had it yourself. And the debate ends up in many other stupid things, like Christians being against science, when most Christians are very happy about science.

The idea of spirits and spiritual connections isn't necessarily a mental breakdown. In fact, most atheists identify it as SPAG - self projection as god. In other words, the religious believer is projecting themselves as God, and thus can very easily establish a 'spiritual' connection with their image of God without there being an actual god to connect with. Not only that, but it is a common Christian belief, and to a large degree, beliefs make their own reality.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

You see most Christians have in some way had an "spiritual" encounter with God, that gives some feelings to Gods love, and not just a theory. Of course in a worldview with no spirits, that encounter is most likely to be interpreted as a mental breakdown.

Hmmm. Mental Breakdown? I don't view my Christian sisters and mother as having mental breakdowns. You do not understand the open minded view of atheists. We understand love, we just think that there is no god. Spend some time perusing the arguments here, Daveivind. As a Christian for most of my life, my definition of god became smaller and smaller, to fit in gaps that other people taught, until I realized - never mind, my wife is yelling ..... gotta go!

My belife is it that God has choosen to work in the creation by the laws he made for the creation. He does not ad or remove mass or energy

This is a very convenient belief. How did you come by it?

Quote

as we have cosen the knowlege of good and evil, God does not constantly remove evil as soon as it occurs, how ever, he give ut insights that some day he will remove evil.

We chose that knowledge, did we? When were you presented the choice? And what insights did he give you that he will some day remove evil? Did he also give you insights as to what he's waiting for?

Quote

To me life without fait, makes to little sense. ...I see this life as a little start, a tryout if you want, to a life where time has no existance as we know it from sycluses in the uiverse.

I see the opposite view. Life, WITH faith, has no meaning. You just said yourself that this is just a tryout before you get to the "real thing". WHY BOTHER WITH THE TRY-OUT??? If you are sincere about this belief, your best course of action is clearly suicide. (PLEASE NOTE that I do NOT condone suicide, and I think you should NOT repeat SHOULD NOT commit suicide. I had a brother who killed himself 8 years ago and I miss him dreadfully to this day)

Here's an analogy.

Take two people, equal in every way. Give both people a nice, big, juicy hamburger. Then, tell one person this:"You know, this is the last meal you're ever going to get. You can go over there and get all the condiments you want, and even a side of fries if you're willing to work for them, but after that--that's it."

Tell the other person this:"When you're done with this burger, open that door over there, and there will be the most stupendous banquet anyone can imagine there! You can eat every food you've ever loved, and you'll never get full, forever!"

Which of those people will savor that burger?

Logged

...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

Hint: If it doesn't look like a paradise, it isn't. Stalin & co. essentially created their own religion, a mash-up of Communism and cult of personality, and saw the Orthodox Church as competition that had to be suppressed.

There really is no meaningful comparison that can be made between Stalinist bully-boys and, say, a secular humanist working in a hospital or university. (And if you think the two are comparable, I may have to compare you to Christian bully-boys like Olaf Tryggvason or Pope Innocent VIII. I don't think you'd like that comparison very much at all.)

Quote

...Certainly there is no perfect christian civilization ether, but if you please prove to me better civilization, I might listen with another excitement.

Canada's pretty secular and multicultural at the moment, and although there are many Christians they don't generally get to dictate the laws to everyone else.

Quote

You see most Christians have in some way had an "spiritual" encounter with God, that gives some feelings to Gods love, and not just a theory. Of course in a worldview with no spirits, that encounter is most likely to be interpreted as a mental breakdown. But what can I say? You are very eager to say that other peoples experience is wrong, because you never had it yourself. {emphasis Mine}

You're actually wrong about this, Dageivind. I have had such experiences. The difference is that I didn't automatically assume that they came from this god or that god; I'm still looking for clues as to what actually happened. (I think that "spiritual" experiences are not-yet-explained natural phenomena coming from our own brains, and I understand that neuroscience is starting to find evidence for that hypothesis.)

You see most Christians have in some way had an "spiritual" encounter with God, that gives some feelings to Gods love, and not just a theory. Of course in a worldview with no spirits, that encounter is most likely to be interpreted as a mental breakdown. But what can I say? You are very eager to say that other peoples experience is wrong, because you never had it yourself. {emphasis Mine}

You're actually wrong about this, Dageivind. I have had such experiences. The difference is that I didn't automatically assume that they came from this god or that god; I'm still looking for clues as to what actually happened. (I think that "spiritual" experiences are not-yet-explained natural phenomena coming from our own brains, and I understand that neuroscience is starting to find evidence for that hypothesis.)

First of all, I, as an atheist, am not hell-bent on proving the god is not great. Being as there isn't one. I'm here trying to demonstrate that the lack of a god is just fine. Theists seem to think otherwise.

Theists tend to get really exited from the experiences they have, like Paul from the Acts of the Apostles. The man went "insane" according to the Roman officers, yet he just kept telling his story of how he had a vision from God, and was led by The Holy Spirit. It might just be a dream or something, but to some of us it is quite enough to believe in God. However we seem to be more bent on convicting people, then Jesus himself. I do apologise our over the edge judgemental attempts to get people to believe in our God, and how much he loves them.

Theists tend to get really exited from the experiences they have, like Paul from the Acts of the Apostles. The man went "insane" according to the Roman officers, yet he just kept telling his story of how he had a vision from God, and was led by The Holy Spirit.

Did the Romans themselves say that Paul went insane (and if so, in what Roman records may we read this account?) or did Paul say that the Romans had declared him insane? This is a technical point that is critical to understanding what Paul was up to.

The insanity of one man is rarely reported unless it has a profound adverse effect on the society in which it occurs. A folie à deux {trois, quatre...} by a bunch of well-connected zealots, however, is IMO a more likely explanation than an actual visitation from a deity.

Nobody has yet explained how "god's love" makes the world a better place, even if it is real. I don't see christians (or any other religious group) having better lives than those that don't share the same beliefs, let alone better lives than those who don't have any beliefs. Just saying you feel good doesn't do offer anything to me, tangible or otherwise.

I would like to refer to the sermon on the mount in the gospel of Mattew chapter 5-7. It ends by Jesus comparing those who actually do what he says to the good constructor who put his house on solid ground. Now Christian or not, people can be more or less following the instructions given, where the point is to have a little more self insight, and not be to judgemental but rather loving towards other people, even when they don't deserve it. Read the passage, and you'll see the challenge is enough to stretch anyone, yet the point is more of giving a direction of a set of mind, rather ten a list of does and don-ts. The connection to God's love is that like wise children who actually understands how much their parents loves them, and therefor trust they want the best for them, so even when the disagree with the parents, they still decide to listen to their advice. So if God loves us, and he wants us to love our enemies, so be it. Not "Survival of the fittest" or "eye for eye and tooth for tooth".

Theists tend to get really exited from the experiences they have, like Paul from the Acts of the Apostles. The man went "insane" according to the Roman officers, yet he just kept telling his story of how he had a vision from God, and was led by The Holy Spirit.

Did the Romans themselves say that Paul went insane (and if so, in what Roman records may we read this account?) or did Paul say that the Romans had declared him insane? This is a technical point that is critical to understanding what Paul was up to.

The insanity of one man is rarely reported unless it has a profound adverse effect on the society in which it occurs. A folie à deux {trois, quatre...} by a bunch of well-connected zealots, however, is IMO a more likely explanation than an actual visitation from a deity.

It was quoted by Luke, the doctor as he tried to tell the story of the first christians. Act 26:24 "While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus *said in a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad.” I doubt there is any Roman text source to confirm this. It takes a degree of importance to preserve such old sources, and to the Romans, Paul were one of their own citizens who was replaced from Jerusalem, as the Jews were about to kill him. In Rome he was of no importance an might have been kill during the prosecution of the Christians under king Nero around 70 ad.

Nobody has yet explained how "god's love" makes the world a better place, even if it is real. I don't see christians (or any other religious group) having better lives than those that don't share the same beliefs, let alone better lives than those who don't have any beliefs. Just saying you feel good doesn't do offer anything to me, tangible or otherwise.

I would like to refer to the sermon on the mount in the gospel of Mattew chapter 5-7. It ends by Jesus comparing those who actually do what he says to the good constructor who put his house on solid ground. Now Christian or not, people can be more or less following the instructions given, where the point is to have a little more self insight, and not be to judgemental but rather loving towards other people, even when they don't deserve it. Read the passage, and you'll see the challenge is enough to stretch anyone, yet the point is more of giving a direction of a set of mind, rather ten a list of does and don-ts. The connection to God's love is that like wise children who actually understands how much their parents loves them, and therefor trust they want the best for them, so even when the disagree with the parents, they still decide to listen to their advice. So if God loves us, and he wants us to love our enemies, so be it. Not "Survival of the fittest" or "eye for eye and tooth for tooth".

I agree with everything except the authenticity of the source. As a really nice guy/atheist, who needs no external impetus from an imaginary savior to do good things for others, I am flabbergasted that others need direction and threat of punishment to be even half as nice as me.

Ancient wisdom is often indeed wise. But putting a deity's face on it to make it more palatable undermines human reason and purpose. It makes up shit as it tries to tell us to be honest. I consider that a destructive extra step.

Theists tend to get really exited from the experiences they have, like Paul from the Acts of the Apostles. The man went "insane" according to the Roman officers, yet he just kept telling his story of how he had a vision from God, and was led by The Holy Spirit.

Did the Romans themselves say that Paul went insane (and if so, in what Roman records may we read this account?) or did Paul say that the Romans had declared him insane? This is a technical point that is critical to understanding what Paul was up to.

The insanity of one man is rarely reported unless it has a profound adverse effect on the society in which it occurs. A folie à deux {trois, quatre...} by a bunch of well-connected zealots, however, is IMO a more likely explanation than an actual visitation from a deity.

It was quoted by Luke, the doctor as he tried to tell the story of the first christians. Act 26:24 "While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus *said in a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad.”

So no non-Biblical sources, then. Could just be artistic license on Luke's part, or hyperbole on the part of Festus, or perhaps Paul actually was mad.

But regardless of what actually happened, it doesn't advance the search for evidence of gods.

Sertenly God interveins, but he does not remove our mandate to rule the world,

Next paragraph, and god DOES intervene, and does NOT override our free will! Sorry, but I haven't a clue what your position actually is. There are only two options, and what you say both supports and refutes both.

1) God intervenes directly in the world. You say: yes and no. "God has choosen to work in the creation by the laws he made for the creation" - but also "Sertenly God interveins"

2) God does not intervene himself, but alters people's will so they intervene for him. You say: yes and no. "everything God wants to do on the Earth, he chooses to do trough people" - but also "he does not remove our mandate"

Bottom line? I'm confused.

Dageivind, were you intending to clarify your position on when and how your god intervenes?

Sertenly God interveins, but he does not remove our mandate to rule the world,

Next paragraph, and god DOES intervene, and does NOT override our free will! Sorry, but I haven't a clue what your position actually is. There are only two options, and what you say both supports and refutes both.

1) God intervenes directly in the world. You say: yes and no. "God has choosen to work in the creation by the laws he made for the creation" - but also "Sertenly God interveins"

2) God does not intervene himself, but alters people's will so they intervene for him. You say: yes and no. "everything God wants to do on the Earth, he chooses to do trough people" - but also "he does not remove our mandate"

Bottom line? I'm confused.

Dageivind, were you intending to clarify your position on when and how your god intervenes?

God interveined in different ways through history, like when he lived and died as a person, then was raised from the dead. Now that's not a good story to tell a scientists, lest he could see Jesus himself, and run some tests on a supernatural DNA and organic cells. Yet God has his way of confirming this story, like when Paul was knocked of his horse on his way to arrest Christians, or to me once I was praying. The thing is, I can only know about God what he chooses to show me, or what others tell me. Then I choose what to believe or not. I'm sorry but that is confusing, and I would love to have some more scientific answares to spiritual questions, but until then I will trust in the feeling within me, that is very much alike what i later on have read in the Bible, which is why it makes more sense to me.

1) God intervenes directly in the world. You say: yes and no. "God has choosen to work in the creation by the laws he made for the creation" - but also "Sertenly God interveins"

2) God does not intervene himself, but alters people's will so they intervene for him. You say: yes and no. "everything God wants to do on the Earth, he chooses to do trough people" - but also "he does not remove our mandate"

Bottom line? I'm confused.

God interveined in different ways through history, like when he lived and died as a person, then was raised from the dead. Now that's not a good story to tell a scientists, lest he could see Jesus himself, and run some tests on a supernatural DNA and organic cells. Yet God has his way of confirming this story, like when Paul was knocked of his horse on his way to arrest Christians, or to me once I was praying.

And once again....not a straight answer. It mostly SOUNDS like a "God intervenes directly in the world", but then there's the get-out that I've bolded, that seems to imply that you think god USED to intervene, but now does NOT in case he accidentally proves he exists(!).

So simple question, looking for a direct answer please. Does your god intervene directly in the world, yes or no?